undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbrudgers13y ago0 comments

Skype has been a disruptive technology within the phone industry. Combined with Microsoft's mobile operating system and perhaps a hardware partner such as Nokia, it is quite possible that we may say mobile "phones" that completely bypass the current established carriers.

To put it another way, how often are most people away from a WiFi network when they make a call? Or more importantly, when they access a data stream with their device? $8 billion for Microsoft is not a significant amount when it comes to purchasing growth, and the article isn't about Facetime for Linux.

0 comments

jsnell13y ago

At least I will much more often be with a phone with no WiFi access than within WiFi access with no computing device except a phone. And if I have something other than a phone available, I'm really not going to use Skype on the phone. The old Linux version of Skype wasn't the most brilliant piece of software ever, but even it is so far ahead of the phone versions of Skype that it's not even funny.

Does Skype run decently on any phone platform? I know the Android version will drain the battery dry faster than playing a 3D game and will not reliably receive calls even when running in the foreground. And it's my understanding that the WP7 version requires so much memory it doesn't even run on all WP7 phones, and will not run at all in the background making it totally useless.

At this point the idea that Skype + mobile would be some kind of a killer combination worth billions seems like a total pipe-dream. The only real-world effect it has is to kill Nokia faster due to mobile operators hating Skype, and not wanting to be aligned with MS.

brudgersOP13y ago

Having at one time worked in a Fortune 100 company, people take a lot of calls on their mobile phone while sitting at their desk. Those plan minutes add up.

Like most Microsoft products, the big fish is enterprise, not consumers. The 3D game comparison is somewhat misleading.

As an aside, the current version of Windows Phone was developed prior to the acquisition of Skype. Closer integration in future versions would not be unexpected.

jsnell13y ago

Ah, right. I forgot about the silly American idea of the receiver paying for a call instead of the caller. My experience with Skype is that it's very rarely used for making phone calls to normal numbers, but used all the time for long-distance / international calls with somebody expecting that call. There's very little benefit to using a mobile terminal in a case like that.

My point about battery life might not have been well made. It's not that games are an alternative to Skype, but that it's just absurdly power-hungry. Even more so than the apps that you'd expect to be the real hogs. My Nexus S usually goes 2-3 days between charges. If I leave Skype running in the background, it's drained in less than 8 hours.

Controlling that largest VoIP network in the world might well be valuable to MS. But to date I just haven't seen any evidence of it mixing well with mobile phones.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

jsnell13y ago

brudgersOP13y ago

Having at one time worked in a Fortune 100 company, people take a lot of calls on their mobile phone while sitting at their desk. Those plan minutes add up.

Like most Microsoft products, the big fish is enterprise, not consumers. The 3D game comparison is somewhat misleading.

As an aside, the current version of Windows Phone was developed prior to the acquisition of Skype. Closer integration in future versions would not be unexpected.

jsnell13y ago

Controlling that largest VoIP network in the world might well be valuable to MS. But to date I just haven't seen any evidence of it mixing well with mobile phones.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse